Search - 包建铎违纪违法案件以案促改以案促治专题组织生活会 个人对照检查

Smith J found that CO2 Technologies was “a corporation controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever” by a public corporation (CO2 Public) and, thus, was not a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC) – even before getting to the one-sided terms of the “research agreement” between the two corporations. ...

Whether the property was a “former business property” turned on whether (under the definition thereof) it qualified as a “property … leased by the taxpayer to a person related to the taxpayer and used by that related person principally for any other purpose.” ...

The appeal judge did not … fail to consider any relevant factor. ...

. … [It] simply could not take advantage of the proceeds of the illegally obtained warrants. ...

. … The Agricultural Activities are not carried on independently of the Manufacturing and Processing Activities given Lunick Farm's strategy of vertical integration. ...

Rennie JA further stated (at paras. 49, 51): … I do not wish to be taken as endorsing the Minister’s arguments that the issuing of the notices of assessment deprives the Federal Court of jurisdiction to consider the Minister’s exercise of discretion under the ETA. ...

. … It does not operate to give every non-resident a taxation year thereby allowing every non‑resident to bring themselves within the scope of the Act. ...

In dismissing their appeal, Bouchard JCA indicated that the fact that this was an isolated transaction and that they were not “flippers” was not decisive, the judge had not erred in noting the complete absence of any business plan or other documentary proof of their lack of motivating intention to sell (although, he noted, at para. 34, TaxInterpretations translation, and before referring to Hickman Motors in this regard) that “it is true that there are exceptional situations where the taxpayer manages to demolish the ARQ's assumptions of fact despite the taxpayer’s evidence being limited to the taxpayer’s testimony”) and (at para. 44) that “the judge did not commit a reviewable error … by holding that the appellants had a secondary intention to divest themselves of their project in the event of an interesting offer being made to them.” ...

. … Given that the Federation became legally obligated to pay a “levy” for a year to CanLII once such levy and the corresponding levies on the provincial law societies, had been approved by its council, “the levy was paid by operation of law for the supply of the virtual library,” i.e., “[t]here was an obligation on the Federation to pay and payment was not discretionary as argued by the [Crown]” (para. 510. ...

The fourth (“JDF”) property was bought as a vacant lot in October 2009, he and his wife and children, during construction of a home thereon with the assistance of TSC, moved into the basement and then the main floor in August and November 2010, respectively – but the house was sold in June 2013 (with an October closing) due to financial pressure on the taxpayer resulting from a business downturn. ...